Lawyerly

GR No. 158143

2011-09-21

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA

BRION, J.

As the facts of this case bear out, PCIB did not act out of malice or bad faith when it froze Ramos' bank account and subsequently debited the amount of P251,910.96 therefrom. While PCIB may have acted hastily and without regard to its primary duty to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and utmost fidelity,[40] we find that its actions were propelled more by the need to protect itself, and not out of malevolence or ill will. One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting moral damages.[41]

GR No. 179419

2011-01-12

DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION v. PIONEER INSURANCE

NACHURA, J.

While it is a sound policy not to set a premium on the right to litigate, [12] we find that respondent is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect its interest, [13] or when the court deems it just and equitable. [14] In this case, petitioner refused to answer for the loss of See's vehicle, which was deposited with it for safekeeping. This refusal constrained respondent, the insurer of See, and subrogated to the latter's right, to litigate and incur expenses. However, we reduce the award of P120,000.00 to P60,000.00 in view of the simplicity of the issues involved in this case.

GR No. 164968

2009-07-03

GLORIA OCAMPO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES

PERALTA, J.

Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another's name with intent to defraud.[39] Here, Ocampo admitted that she

GR No. 177795

2009-06-19

LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[46] In addition, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.[47] Bad faith, under the law, does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[48]

GR No. 177526

2008-07-04

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION

REYES, R.T., J.

In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori Internationale,[41] this Court similarly held:For allowing payment on the checks to a wrongful and fictitious payee, BPI - the drawee bank - becomes liable to its depositor-drawer. Since the encashing bank is one of its branches, BPI can easily go after it and hold it liable for reimbursement. x x x In both law and equity, when one of two innocent persons "must suffer by the wrongful act of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong.[42]

GR No. 176434

2008-06-25

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION

TINGA, J,

BPI cannot escape liability because of LMC's failure to scrutinize the monthly statements sent to it by the bank. This omission does not change the fact that were it not for the wanton and reckless negligence of BPI's tellers in failing to require the surrender of the machine-validated deposit slips before reversing the deposit transactions, the loss would not have occurred. BPI's negligence is undoubtedly the proximate cause of the loss. Proximate cause is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.[14]

GR No. 155033

2007-12-19

ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In addition, and with respect to Benjamin, the Court agrees with the CA that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded.[28] The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.[29] One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[30] In the absence of malice and bad faith, the mental anguish suffered by a person for having been made a party in a civil case is not the kind of anxiety which would warrant the award of moral damages.[31]

GR No. 123498

2007-11-23

BPI FAMILY BANK v. AMADO FRANCO

NACHURA, J.

We have had occasion to hold that in the absence of fraud or bad faith,[47] moral damages cannot be awarded; and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it. One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[48]

GR NO. 165955

2007-08-10

FILINVEST LAND v. FLOOD-AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS OF MERITVILLE ALLIANCE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. In Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[3] we defined negligence as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do." It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances just demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.[4] In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori Internationale,[5] we reiterated the rule that negligence is never presumed but must be proven by whoever alleges it. In determining whether or not a party acted negligently, the constant test is: "Did the defendant in doing the negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence."[6]

GR NO. 167848

2007-04-27

BANK OF COMMERCE v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

We never fail to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to commercial transactions, in particular, and to the country's economy in general. The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence.[30] Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it. [31]

GR NO. 152720

2005-02-17

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. SPS. TEODULFO AND CARMEN ARRIETA

PANGANIBAN, J.

Fourth, treating Carmen's account as closed, merely because the ledger could not be found was a reckless act that could not simply be brushed off as an honest mistake. We have repeatedly emphasized that the banking industry is impressed with public interest. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and always to have in mind the fiduciary nature of its relationship with them. [16]

GR No. 156940

2004-12-14

ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

In BPI v. Casa Montessori,[14] the Court has emphasized that the banking business is impressed with public interest. "Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care."[15]

GR No. 151963

2004-09-09

AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS.

PANGANIBAN, J.

The March 19, 1997 Certification issued by Captain Villacampa is inadmissible in evidence. It was a mere reproduction of an original that had never been produced or offered in evidence.[113] Under the best evidence rule[114] as applied to documentary evidence, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original itself when the subject of inquiry is its contents.[115] Since none of the exceptions to this rule has been proven,[116] "secondary or substitutionary evidence"[117] is not permitted.[118]

	GR No. 158143 2011-09-21	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. ANTONIO B. BALMACEDA BRION, J.
As the facts of this case bear out, PCIB did not act out of malice or bad faith when it froze Ramos' bank account and subsequently debited the amount of P251,910.96 therefrom. While PCIB may have acted hastily and without regard to its primary duty to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and utmost fidelity,[40] we find that its actions were propelled more by the need to protect itself, and not out of malevolence or ill will. One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting moral damages.[41]
	GR No. 179419 2011-01-12	DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION v. PIONEER INSURANCE NACHURA, J.
While it is a sound policy not to set a premium on the right to litigate, [12] we find that respondent is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees. Attorney's fees may be awarded when a party is compelled to litigate or incur expenses to protect its interest, [13] or when the court deems it just and equitable. [14] In this case, petitioner refused to answer for the loss of See's vehicle, which was deposited with it for safekeeping. This refusal constrained respondent, the insurer of See, and subrogated to the latter's right, to litigate and incur expenses. However, we reduce the award of P120,000.00 to P60,000.00 in view of the simplicity of the issues involved in this case.
	GR No. 164968 2009-07-03	GLORIA OCAMPO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES PERALTA, J.
Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another's name with intent to defraud.[39] Here, Ocampo admitted that she
	GR No. 177795 2009-06-19	LEAH M. NAZARENO v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moral damages are awarded if the following elements exist in the case: (1) an injury clearly sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or omission factually established; (3) a wrongful act or omission by the defendant as the proximate cause of the injury sustained by the claimant; and (4) the award of damages predicated on any of the cases stated Article 2219 of the Civil Code.[46] In addition, the person claiming moral damages must prove the existence of bad faith by clear and convincing evidence for the law always presumes good faith. It is not enough that one merely suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish, and serious anxiety as the result of the actuations of the other party. Invariably such action must be shown to have been willfully done in bad faith or with ill motive.[47] Bad faith, under the law, does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty through some motive or interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud.[48]
	GR No. 177526 2008-07-04	PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. CHOWKING FOOD CORPORATION REYES, R.T., J.
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori Internationale,[41] this Court similarly held:For allowing payment on the checks to a wrongful and fictitious payee, BPI - the drawee bank - becomes liable to its depositor-drawer. Since the encashing bank is one of its branches, BPI can easily go after it and hold it liable for reimbursement. x x x In both law and equity, when one of two innocent persons "must suffer by the wrongful act of a third person, the loss must be borne by the one whose negligence was the proximate cause of the loss or who put it into the power of the third person to perpetrate the wrong.[42]
	GR No. 176434 2008-06-25	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. LIFETIME MARKETING CORPORATION TINGA, J,
BPI cannot escape liability because of LMC's failure to scrutinize the monthly statements sent to it by the bank. This omission does not change the fact that were it not for the wanton and reckless negligence of BPI's tellers in failing to require the surrender of the machine-validated deposit slips before reversing the deposit transactions, the loss would not have occurred. BPI's negligence is undoubtedly the proximate cause of the loss. Proximate cause is that cause which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.[14]
	GR No. 155033 2007-12-19	ALICE A.I. SANDEJAS v. SPS. ARTURO IGNACIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In addition, and with respect to Benjamin, the Court agrees with the CA that in the absence of a wrongful act or omission, or of fraud or bad faith, moral damages cannot be awarded.[28] The adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it.[29] One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[30] In the absence of malice and bad faith, the mental anguish suffered by a person for having been made a party in a civil case is not the kind of anxiety which would warrant the award of moral damages.[31]
	GR No. 123498 2007-11-23	BPI FAMILY BANK v. AMADO FRANCO NACHURA, J.
We have had occasion to hold that in the absence of fraud or bad faith,[47] moral damages cannot be awarded; and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make the action wrongful, or the party liable for it. One may err, but error alone is not a ground for granting such damages.[48]
	GR NO. 165955 2007-08-10	FILINVEST LAND v. FLOOD-AFFECTED HOMEOWNERS OF MERITVILLE ALLIANCE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
ART. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages. In Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[3] we defined negligence as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do." It is the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilance that the circumstances just demand, whereby that other person suffers injury.[4] In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori Internationale,[5] we reiterated the rule that negligence is never presumed but must be proven by whoever alleges it. In determining whether or not a party acted negligently, the constant test is: "Did the defendant in doing the negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence."[6]
	GR NO. 167848 2007-04-27	BANK OF COMMERCE v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We never fail to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to commercial transactions, in particular, and to the country's economy in general. The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence.[30] Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it. [31]
	GR NO. 152720 2005-02-17	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. SPS. TEODULFO AND CARMEN ARRIETA PANGANIBAN, J.
Fourth, treating Carmen's account as closed, merely because the ledger could not be found was a reckless act that could not simply be brushed off as an honest mistake. We have repeatedly emphasized that the banking industry is impressed with public interest. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care and always to have in mind the fiduciary nature of its relationship with them. [16]
	GR No. 156940 2004-12-14	ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN PANGANIBAN, J.
In BPI v. Casa Montessori,[14] the Court has emphasized that the banking business is impressed with public interest. "Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required of it. By the nature of its functions, a bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care."[15]
	GR No. 151963 2004-09-09	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AVIATION SERVICES PHILS. PANGANIBAN, J.
The March 19, 1997 Certification issued by Captain Villacampa is inadmissible in evidence. It was a mere reproduction of an original that had never been produced or offered in evidence.[113] Under the best evidence rule[114] as applied to documentary evidence, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original itself when the subject of inquiry is its contents.[115] Since none of the exceptions to this rule has been proven,[116] "secondary or substitutionary evidence"[117] is not permitted.[118]

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE